Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09
Posted by Mike B. on 1/11/10
Your credibility blows in the wind along with your tobacco smoke. Your audiences need to be aware of your smoking history.
You had a daughter with Cystic Fibrosis, and you blamed mold for worsening her condition. Yet, you smoked cigarettes
everyday. You probably smelled (and still do) like an ashtray everytime you were near her. What a zealous hypocrit you are.
On 1/11/10, Sharon wrote:
> You are correct again. And it should not be this way. You are the dicotomy of JC. Instead of wanting everyone else to have
> to go thru what you did, YOU work to stop it from happening to others.
> The way to stop it is to make it well known that it is extremely expensive if one negligently builds or maintains
> properties in a manner that is harmful to others. THAT is what will stop the litigation because it will stop the injury.
> In the long run, it will be much more profitable for us all and the contention will be removed aka "sitting bull" from the
> And John for about the 5th time, you have failed to answer the question of why you are still here while claiming to have
> moved on from this issue. As far as the garbage you wrote in your last post, it is made up, WRONG, and there is no
> evidence to support your theories of why I do what I do. But alot of evidence that shows you are now writing known
> I, unlike YOU, was successful with my mold litigation settlement amount and could have easily moved on....but not in good
> conscience knowing how many people were being harmed while some "informed tribal (self professed) braves" say:
> "If Me no get womump me deserve, No one get womump they deserve. Me no care if little braves of tribe sick and have brain
> We are getting there inspite of "brave" braves such as yourself. You can call me every name in the book. It is irrelevant
> to me other than it helps me to get the word out of where some of the problems still lay.
> It won't stop progress of the tribe members one iota, so that others must endure what you did.
> Try to remember this phrase, because you are going to start hearing it ALOT:
> “environmentally relevant dose,' which is the dose in the range of typical human exposure as measured in tissue, blood, and
> urine of study subjects. Simply put, the environmentally relevant dose is based on the internal concentration of the
> toxicant rather than the administered dose."
> In other words, you cannot take a rat study, add some math and then have the US Chamber market to the courts that it has
> been scientifically proven the poison of mold do not poison. It ain't science now and it never was...AND the courts are
> starting to get hip to it, and a few other key facts along the way of what one cannot do in legal proceedings.
> On 1/11/10, Deborah wrote:
>> The average citizen has a considerable disadvantage going into litigation, even with a competent attorney. Takes big
>> bucks to litigate even the most cut and dried case of right v wrong.
>> On 1/11/10, Johncodie wrote:
>>> Like most native americans taken advantage of during the Andrew Jackson era, I am a gather as opposed to your tribe
>>> which is the warrior. I pick up useful information where I can find it and continue the tribal ways. You contiue on
>>> the war path with painted war paint, or atleast lipstick. In response to your comments noted in "response". You
>>> entered into littigation battle and now that the blood has spilled in the first defeat the sharks are approaching for
>>> the continued battle to be scheduled with the clerk. You can't stop thinking about it you won't let the appeal go.
>>> On 1/11/10, Sharon wrote:
>>>> You write, "I want the individual that think they have a good chance of breaking even
>>>> in litigation over toxic mold air to go outside and take a few breaths to clear the head; and make interior home
>>>> changes to improve upon their health."
>>>> Like I said, self professed loser who thinks it is his obligation to direct others to be the same.
>>> Attack of words
>>> I don't know what
>>>> country you live it, but I live in the United States of America.
>>> This doesn't warrant a response.
>>> If people are injured by willful negligence of
>>>> another then they are entitled to restitution.
>>> So why don't you honor the court findings and make restitution.
>>> And IF they get restitution, then those who are negligent will think
>>>> twice before they do it again, staving off unnecessary injury to others.
>>> The money being paid to those on Wall Street show how out of touch you are about the negligent investors and the
>>> taxpayers having to file the taxes this year. As per your example of non-admission of wrong there is hardly ever
>>> restituion made.
>>> The issue is not mold. It is the growing of
>>>> environmental justice - an area of litigation that is in its infancy, and must be properly nurtured in the name of
>>>> public health.
>>> I know of a few environmental courts, and the building inspectors that tried to have the local municipilites to
>>> include semi-annual inspection of homes were swiftly defeated by the State Realtor's board. It would require all
>>> house holds to be subject to inspection either owned or rented. Public Health is the Health Department with
>>> jurisdictions and laws. We have clean air, clean water federal laws. Wow a new specialty of study, law and
>>> engineering? Environmental Justice !!!
>>>> What gives you the right to hold yourself out as omnipitent that others must agree to be losers, too, just like you?
>>> Because I have as many or more hours of remediation of a dwelling with some of the national self proclaimed
>>> environmental justice experts; a settlement placing my family in a warm dry home, family in the insurance department,
>>> children already demonstating the initiative to be a part of the solution, rather waiting on a final payout. An
>>> understanding of those who might be classified by society as loosers, but do have enough common sense to support
>>> themselves rather the join an internet warrior advocacy group.
>>>> You did not answer my question: If you are so over this issue, then why are you still here posting to this board?
>>> Because there are mold warriors like yourself that keep beating the war drums of "If we have enough signatures on a
>>> petition and you send me enough money to my cause I an reverse a jury of 12 of the findings I am a vicious war
>>>> Face it, John. A main theme in your posts has always been and continues to be that you do not like upity old
>>>> sorority girls from Ole Miss.
>>> I did marry a graduate of one of the professional schools there but she was from another state university sorority. I
>>> guess she didn't have enough time for the silly meetings the gals of Ole Miss were soliciting.
>>> Fiddle de de.
>>> Hunky Dorie
>>> It is irrelevant in my life what you do and so..I am not even going to
>>>> bother to think about it another day.
>>> Thats what you said Friday!
>>> Why are you trying to now claim "attorny client priv" when your attorny provided the damning e-mail of the plantiff?
>>> Your appeal that has to be much more expensive makes no sense. Does this become a new law under the enviromental
Posts on this thread, including this one